Britain's mainstream parties pretend to differ on the taxation of multi-nationals yet were happy with Revenue & Customs cutting sweetheart deals. They also pretend to differ on the EU, yet are committed, as are many Eurosceptic Tory MPs, to the free movement of labour within an ever expanding, albeit looser, EU.

This is to be expected of ideologically driven globalists and Mammon worshippers. Not for these laissez-faire spear-carriers to worry about uncontrolled immigration because, they say, it will be self-regulating.

It also happens to be morally wrong to import cheap labour with the aim of driving down unskilled wages. Achieving a living wage for our unskilled citizenry will require curtailing immigration from within the EU as well as without.

There will be a transfer of purchasing power from the "haves" to the "have-nots" as menial jobs that cannot be outsourced abroad become more costly. This is a small price to pay for anyone concerned about national cohesiveness.

He tells us: "It's probably only a significant increase in international tax globally that would make every country a 'winner' – and the consequences of that would likely be less innovation, less growth and less job creation."

However, more revenue to national exchequers can lead to a multiplier effect for society as a whole. Greater investment in infrastructure, increased income for publicly financed job creation and redistribution of income to boost consumption are just some of the potential multiplier effects.

As for his point about innovation, there is now reputable research (eg William Lazonick and Mariana Mazzucato) which shows that innovation, especially in high risk and high capital intensity areas, rather than being initially financed by private companies, is significantly funded by governments.

Michael Somerton

Hull

Eric Schmidt is disingenuous in the extreme when he says that companies should be taxed where their economic activity takes place and their profits are generated, which he claims is where his engineers are based – in the US.

Common sense would say the tax should be paid to the society from which the revenues are drawn as it is this society's expensive welfare systems that create a society with money to spend. As for wanting a pat on the head for investing £1bn in London property, he surely must realise that the London property market needs foreign capital as much as it needs a tsunami and if he really cares two hoots about the UK he should open his new office in Tyneside.

Silas Sutcliffe

London NW3

I totally agree with Nick Cohen when he wrote: "Tycoons enchanted politicians. They convinced them that their interest and the national interest were as one." It was not only the politicians who were enchanted by tycoons. Journalists and newspaper editors became "enchanted", too, and many still are.

So I was not that surprised to find Google chair Eric Schmidt had been given half a page in the same edition to whitewash his company's tax avoidance schemes. Pull the other one, Eric; the British people have no interest in a debate with you, we just want you to pay your taxes.